Oleg Borisenko1, Vasily Lukyanov2, Isabelle Debergh3, Bruno Dillemans3. 1. a Health Economics and Market Access , Synergus AB , Danderyd ( Stockholm ), Sweden. 2. b Health Economics , Synergus AB , Danderyd (Stockholm) , Sweden. 3. c Dienst Algemene, Vaat- en Kinderheelkunde, AZ Sint-Jan Brugge-Oostende AV, campus Sint-Jan , Ruddershove 10 , 8000 Brugge , Belgium.
Abstract
AIMS: This study presents the cost-effectiveness analysis of bariatric surgery in Belgium from a third-party payer perspective for a lifetime and 10-year horizon. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A decision analytic model incorporating Markov process was developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of gastric bypass, sleeve gastrectomy, and adjustable gastric banding against conventional medical management (CMM). In the model, patients could undergo surgery, or experience post-surgery complications, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, or die. Transition probabilities, costs, and utilities were derived from the literature. The impact of different surgical methods on body mass index (BMI) level in the base-case analysis was informed by the Scandinavian Obesity Surgery Registry and the Swedish Obese Subject (SOS) study. Healthcare resource use and costs were obtained from Belgian sources. A base-case analysis was performed for the population, the characteristics of which were obtained from surgery candidates in Belgium. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis over a 10-year time horizon, the increment in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained from bariatric surgery vs CMM was 1.4 per patient, whereas the incremental cost was €3,788, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €2,809 per QALY. Over a lifetime, bariatric surgery produced savings of €9,332, an additional 1.1 life years and 5.0 QALYs. Bariatric surgery was cost-effective at 10 years post-surgery and dominant over conventional management over a lifetime horizon. LIMITATIONS: The model did not include the whole scope of obesity-related complications, and also did not account for variation in surgery outcomes for different populations of diabetic patients. Also, the data about management of patients after surgery was based on assumptions and the opinion of a clinical expert. CONCLUSIONS: It was demonstrated that a current mix of bariatric surgery methods was cost-effective at 10 years post-surgery and cost-saving over the lifetime of the Belgian patient cohort considered in this analysis.
AIMS: This study presents the cost-effectiveness analysis of bariatric surgery in Belgium from a third-party payer perspective for a lifetime and 10-year horizon. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A decision analytic model incorporating Markov process was developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of gastric bypass, sleeve gastrectomy, and adjustable gastric banding against conventional medical management (CMM). In the model, patients could undergo surgery, or experience post-surgery complications, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, or die. Transition probabilities, costs, and utilities were derived from the literature. The impact of different surgical methods on body mass index (BMI) level in the base-case analysis was informed by the Scandinavian Obesity Surgery Registry and the Swedish Obese Subject (SOS) study. Healthcare resource use and costs were obtained from Belgian sources. A base-case analysis was performed for the population, the characteristics of which were obtained from surgery candidates in Belgium. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis over a 10-year time horizon, the increment in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained from bariatric surgery vs CMM was 1.4 per patient, whereas the incremental cost was €3,788, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €2,809 per QALY. Over a lifetime, bariatric surgery produced savings of €9,332, an additional 1.1 life years and 5.0 QALYs. Bariatric surgery was cost-effective at 10 years post-surgery and dominant over conventional management over a lifetime horizon. LIMITATIONS: The model did not include the whole scope of obesity-related complications, and also did not account for variation in surgery outcomes for different populations of diabeticpatients. Also, the data about management of patients after surgery was based on assumptions and the opinion of a clinical expert. CONCLUSIONS: It was demonstrated that a current mix of bariatric surgery methods was cost-effective at 10 years post-surgery and cost-saving over the lifetime of the Belgian patient cohort considered in this analysis.
Authors: Emma C Kearns; Naomi M Fearon; Pauric O'Reilly; Cian Lawton; Tim McMackin; Abigail M Walsh; Justin Geogheghan; Helen M Heneghan Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2021-01-08 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Karen Jordan; Christopher G Fawsitt; Paul G Carty; Barbara Clyne; Conor Teljeur; Patricia Harrington; Mairin Ryan Journal: Eur J Health Econ Date: 2022-07-22
Authors: Agnès Leclercq; Bart Van der Schueren; Amber Van den Eynde; Diederik De Cock; Valérie Fabri; Wies Kestens; Tonio Di Zinno; Steven Brabant; Ann Mertens; Roman Vangoitsenhoven; Ellen Deleus; Matthias Lannoo; Ronny Bruffaerts Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2022-06-15 Impact factor: 3.479
Authors: Tomasz Stefura; Oksana Skomarovska; Michał Wysocki; Michał Janik; Marta Krzysztofik; Maciej Walędziak; Michał Pędziwiatr; Piotr Kowalewski; Piotr Małczak; Katarzyna Bartosiak; Mateusz Rubinkiewicz; Michał Orłowski; Maciej Matłok; Mateusz Wierdak; Katarzyna Major; Piotr Myśliwiec; Jacek Szeliga; Andrzej Budzyński; Piotr Major Journal: Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne Date: 2019-01-18 Impact factor: 1.195